Loss of visitor moorings in Ware

[Lee & Stort Boat Co]

Make nice Kebabs !

[John Margetts]

Be nice when he starts producing goats cheese though. Common land is for poor people to graze their livestock, not for living on. Why can he not just tie up off the end of the visitor moorings. That would come under the default 2 week rule but surely if he's not bothering anyone, what does it matter? Long live those who choose to live their own lives the way they want to. He would get more sympathy however if he used a bit of brain and considered others.

Just to clear up any confusion Lee & Stort boat co will be operating a trip boat between Ware Town Wharf and Hertford, The Wharf is under the control of Ware Town council who have granted permission for the service, Bircherley Green shopping Centre who own the wharf at Hertford have also given there consent. New signage will be erected at the wharf shortly to show that half of it is for the trip boat and the other half is a visitors mooring. This service will start from 3rd May.

So why is it alright for a commercial company to abuse the visitor mooring facility to make money just because your group has said they can and the rest of us will be potentially threatened with action if we did the same thing, but without your permission. Surely you have a duty to supply visitors with an alternative to the site you have taken from us? By the way a "service" is just what it says it is - a facility for public use - having to pay for a trip boat is therefore NOT using a service. Incidentally, I welcome the trip boat and think it's a good idea. I just don't see why you should take "public" moorings. This mooring WE have paid for already through our license.

[Lady Muck]

The sore point with Ware Common wharf is that it is only one boat length long - either side there is not even any bankside to tie to or stand on, so he is effectively taking it out of use. Not possible to tie off at one end. When you talk to many boaters on our river, so many of them now think its a private mooring.

 

So Ware now has an official mooring for one boat which is very poor.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Lady Muck

[Guest]

Trip boats, taking up precious mooring space is nowt. Just wait till you have a u-boat that wants to....

Edited April 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[Grace and Favour]

Trip boats, taking up precious mooring space is nowt. Just wait till you have a u-boat that wants to....

Goole but not forgotten

[larkshall]

I have quite a few 'heavy acquaintances' in that part of the world (used to be in the re-possession trade a while back), just give me the nod, and his fence will be gone.

[J R ALSOP]

From 1980-84 I worked the trip boat Holland from there, all trips started and finished there. It was always known as the Town Wharf and everybody respected it. I was told it belonged to one of the Universities. I am afraid it is "the johny come lately brigade" who think because they have bought a boat the the canal/river come with it.

[Chris Pink]

I have quite a few 'heavy acquaintances' in that part of the world (used to be in the re-possession trade a while back), just give me the nod, and his fence will be gone.

 

Whoora that's right mate, kill kill smash kill.

 

I like violence. It's the answer to everything.

[mayalld]

Whoora that's right mate, kill kill smash kill.

 

I like violence. It's the answer to everything.

 

Was violence suggested?

 

It read to me as if Larkshall was acknowledging that those who think they can do as they damn well please in life, regardless of the rules, are not known for having a similarly enlightened attitude to others doing as they please.

 

As such, it seems eminently sensible that anybody heading down to Ware to exercise their right to do as they please by taking down fences should be a person unlikely to be troubled by a potentially enraged kindred spirit in the doing as you please stakes.

[Chris Pink]

..

Edited April 22, 2013 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

You are unusually obtuse or perhaps the 'heavy' in Larkshall post simply referred to his overweight acquaintances?

 

And I am once again shocked that you of all people should suggest that two wrongs make a right.

 

Is removing a fence that is not authorised to be there "wrong"?

 

Is it somehow different to picking up litter that somebody else has dropped?

 

And no, I'm not being obtuse. I see not the slightest hint that violence towards the erector of the fence was being suggested. Merely a suggestion that people were available who were unlikely to be intimuidated by any potential threat of violence from the litterbug,

[Chris Pink]

Yes, it is wrong. If it is damaged that is a criminal act, if it is removed that is theft. It is not litter, it is a fence. You don't even know whether he has any legal right to erect it apart from the hearsay on here.

 

So, come on Dave, you know better than that. Are we to expand this into an examination of society and the procedures we have in place to make sure we act in a civilised manner? Sending "heavies" to remove this fence is not my idea of civilised behaviour and even your neanderthal thought process on the matter should realise it's as likely to result in a escalation as resolution.

 

Did you have three shredded wheat this morning or have you been on the testosterone pills again?

[mayalld]

Yes, it is wrong. If it is damaged that is a criminal act, if it is removed that is theft. It is not litter, it is a fence. You don't even know whether he has any legal right to erect it apart from the hearsay on here.

 

So, come on Dave, you know better than that. Are we to expand this into an examination of society and the procedures we have in place to make sure we act in a civilised manner? Sending "heavies" to remove this fence is not my idea of civilised behaviour and even your neanderthal thought process on the matter should realise it's as likely to result in a escalation as resolution.

 

Did you happen to notice, whilst foaming at the mouth, that I wasn't the one that suggested sending in the heavies?

 

I simply point out that whilst YOU seem to have interpreted it as a threat of violence against the boater in question (as is your wont. Just as soon as a boater decides to place himself above the law, and ignore the rules, any suggestion of anything being done about it has to be shouted down by the champion and mouthpiece of the screw-you-I want-to-do-this boater), there is no threat of violence implicit in the suggestion.

 

Will it result in escalation, rather than resolution? Possibly, but having large gentlemen do the job ought to avoid that prospect.

 

If the fence is deconstructed, without causing damage to it, and the component parts offered to the owner of those parts, there is no criminal act.

[Chris Pink]

Pathetic.

 

I really can't be bothered Dave.

 

If 'foaming at the mouth' is the best you can do I shall leave you to it.

 

Enjoy your self righteous exposition of the joys of vigilantism.

[larkshall]

My aquaintances would dismantle the fence, and stack it neatly. As for doing anything illegal, I never suggested doing anything illegal. The offender would be warned once, and invited to remove the fence first.. It would be ponted out to him that his fence was illegal.

 

As for the matter of dogs and goats

 

I don't know what type of dogs the offender keeps, but if they are anywere off private property they must be kept on a leash, perhaps muzzled depending on breed and classification.

 

Goats, that fence will not hold any goat I have encountered, even a british milking toggenberg could leap that (well clamber) that fence. How many goats is he keeping?, I'll talk to my niece (a vet), about what rules and regs he should be obeying..

[Chris Pink]

As I say, canalworld's very own vigilante.

 

Can we use your boys against overstayers?

 

Offenders could be warned once and invited to remove themselves first.

 

Dogs must be kept on a lead? Could you come and have a 'word' (by all means bring the boys) with the dog walkers along the towpath in Bath who walk their dogs with no restraint at all.

[Lee & Stort Boat Co]

 

 

So why is it alright for a commercial company to abuse the visitor mooring facility to make money just because your group has said they can and the rest of us will be potentially threatened with action if we did the same thing, but without your permission. Surely you have a duty to supply visitors with an alternative to the site you have taken from us? By the way a "service" is just what it says it is - a facility for public use - having to pay for a trip boat is therefore NOT using a service. Incidentally, I welcome the trip boat and think it's a good idea. I just don't see why you should take "public" moorings. This mooring WE have paid for already through our license.

Ware town wharf is owned by the council therefore your license has not paid for them local council tax payers have and by the council allowing us to operate a trip boat service the local residence will benefit. I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the "service" we are exactly the same as a bus service! a facility for public to use but your still expected to pay. Wharf's were never built as moorings they were for the loading and loading of commercial boat's and as a commercial boat we will be loading and unloading (passengers)

[DeanS]

so nice to see Chris and Dave at it again. The forum was starting to get boring with all my battery talk. So nice to have some bitey bits to read.

[eightpot]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the "service" we are exactly the same as a bus service!

Unfortunate choice of analogy. Looking at the fitout of the boat on your website, I'd hazard "Limo hire" service would be closer to the truth.

[Dar Kuma]

I have quite a few 'heavy acquaintances' in that part of the world (used to be in the re-possession trade a while back), just give me the nod, and his fence will be gone.

 

you gonna use the wood as part of a refit?

Edited April 25, 2013 by Dar Kuma

[onionbargee]

can i have the goat with the pretty mouth ?

[PiRSqwared]

Ware town wharf is owned by the council therefore your license has not paid for them local council tax payers have and by the council allowing us to operate a trip boat service the local residence will benefit. I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the "service" we are exactly the same as a bus service! a facility for public to use but your still expected to pay. Wharf's were never built as moorings they were for the loading and loading of commercial boat's and as a commercial boat we will be loading and unloading (passengers)

Out of interest, how much will the trips cost?

[Lee & Stort Boat Co]

Out of interest, how much will the trips cost?

 

£6 Adults £3 Kids so hardly a Limo style service as suggested,

[Grace and Favour]

£6 Adults £3 Kids so hardly a Limo style service as suggested,

And complimentary (goat) kebabs too??

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Ware town wharf is owned by the council therefore your license has not paid for them local council tax payers have and by the council allowing us to operate a trip boat service the local residence will benefit. I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the "service" we are exactly the same as a bus service! a facility for public to use but your still expected to pay. Wharf's were never built as moorings they were for the loading and loading of commercial boat's and as a commercial boat we will be loading and unloading (passengers)

Are any of this companies directors associated with Chariots that went bust?

 

If so, why was this not made clear?